Burden of Proving Better Title and Possession in Property Suits Lies Solely Upon the Plaintiff

The Appellants (wife and sons of late Sh. Joginder Singh) filed a suit for possession, declaration, and mesne profits regarding a 150 sq. yard plot in Tughlakabad Village

They claimed Joginder Singh purchased the property via a handwritten note in 1980 from Sardar Bishan Singh, who had acquired it in 1962

The Appellants alleged they permitted Defendant No. 1 (Arud Singh) to store goods on a portion of the land, but he subsequently asserted ownership and illegally sold a portion to Defendant No. 2

The Respondents contended that Joginder Singh was merely a permissive user of 50-60 sq. yards given by his employer, Bishan Singh.

They asserted that the remaining land was given to Arud and Jarnal Singh by their uncle, Jeet Singh, and they had been in possession for over 40 years

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, leading to this appeal

1. Whether the Plaintiffs established a valid legal title/ownership over the suit property through the handwritten note of 1980

2. Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of possession and declaration against the Defendants based on better possessory rights

3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation due to the Defendants' long-settled possession

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandate that the transfer of immovable property of a value exceeding Rs. 100 must be effected by a registered instrument

Principle of "Possessory Title," acknowledging that in cases where formal proprietary title is not proven, the court must determine which party has better possessory rights and recognize the legal protection afforded to long-settled, open, and peaceful possession

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the powers of the appellate court in a Regular First Appeal

The Court observed that the Appellants failed to provide a registered sale deed or a clear chain of title documents to prove ownership, rendering the handwritten note (Ex.PW-1/2) legally insufficient to transfer title under the Transfer of Property Act

While the Appellants proved possession of 50-60 sq. yards, they failed to demonstrate they were ever in possession of the disputed 150 sq. yard portion

The Court highlighted that a 2011 Panchayat settlement (Ex. DW-1/4), admitted by the Plaintiff, endorsed the Defendants' possession of the second room and adjoining land for approximately 40 years

The Court found no evidence that the Defendants were "permissive users" under the Appellants; rather, they occupied the land independently as nephews of the original occupant, Jeet Singh

Since the Defendants demonstrated open and long-settled possession, and the Appellants failed to prove prior possession or valid title of the specific disputed area, the Appellants' claim for possession failed

The Court concluded that the Respondents established long-settled possession which could not be disturbed without a valid title from the Appellants

The appeal (RFA 91/2026) and all pending applications were dismissed